TMX processing with PMK or rodinal or Tmax RS
DHW430
I would like to get any advice on these developer options for this weekend,
i.e. the pros and cons for each. The negatives are 4x5 and need N+1 developing
and will either be developed in a tray or Yankee tank. The subject if it
matters were landscapes. Thanks in advance for the info- Don
William Laut
:
: I would like to get any advice on these developer options for this weekend,
: i.e. the pros and cons for each. The negatives are 4x5 and need N+1 developing
: and will either be developed in a tray or Yankee tank. The subject if it
: matters were landscapes. Thanks in advance for the info- Don
As one of the self-described "PMK bigots" in this ng, for TMX I would
frankly recommend that you _avoid_ PMK altogether. My experience is
limited to 35mm TMX, but on that basis I find PMK unsatisfactory because
it does not stain the emulsion very well, and therefore it is pointless to
use PMK, since other developers will do just as well without the
constraints associated with PMK.
Bill
Michael Gudzinowicz
William Laut <wl...@alpha.delta.edu> writes:
>DHW430 (dhw...@aol.com) wrote:
>:
>: I would like to get any advice on these developer options for this weekend
>: matters were landscapes. Thanks in advance for the info- Don
>
>
>As one of the self-described "PMK bigots" in this ng, for TMX I would
>frankly recommend that you _avoid_ PMK altogether. My experience is
>limited to 35mm TMX, but on that basis I find PMK unsatisfactory because
>it does not stain the emulsion very well, and therefore it is pointless to
>use PMK, since other developers will do just as well without the
>constraints associated with PMK.
well in his PMK brew, so that combination hasn't been recommended. The
warning is in his book.
I don't see the point in condemning the for the one instance for which it
is known to give unsatisfactory results, nor for large format use where
granularity is less of an issue than acutance compared to 35 mm.
William Laut
:
Perhaps I didn't state myself clearly enough. I am _not_ condemning PMK
entirely, but _only_ for use with TMX. Other films, such as Plus-X, will
stain magnificently, and for those I heartily recommend PMK's use.
For the film under discussion, TMX, I only offer the opinion that PMK's
primary attraction - its stain - is not as pronounced as with other films,
and so its peculiarities (more-frequent agitation, non-hardening fixer,
etc.) may not make it worth using.
Bill
Robert Huckabee
>DHW430 (dhw...@aol.com) wrote:
>:
>: i.e. the pros and cons for each. The negatives are 4x5 and need N+1 developing
>: and will either be developed in a tray or Yankee tank. The subject if it
>: matters were landscapes. Thanks in advance for the info- Don
>
>
>As one of the self-described "PMK bigots" in this ng, for TMX I would
>frankly recommend that you _avoid_ PMK altogether. My experience is
>limited to 35mm TMX, but on that basis I find PMK unsatisfactory because
>it does not stain the emulsion very well, and therefore it is pointless to
>use PMK, since other developers will do just as well without the
>constraints associated with PMK.
I agree with Bill. I have used PMK to develop TMX and TMY in 135 and 120 formatts.
Thought the 120 TMX had more stain than the 135 (virtualy nil), I don't recomend
PMK for the TMAX films.
Just my 0.14 krona worth.
Bob
>
>
>Bill
>
Clyde Davidson
Clyde
Michael Gudzinowicz wrote:
>
> William Laut <wl...@alpha.delta.edu> writes:
>
> >DHW430 (dhw...@aol.com) wrote:
> >:
> >: I would like to get any advice on these developer options for this weekend
> >: i.e. the pros and cons for each. The negatives are 4x5 and need N+1 develop
> >: and will either be developed in a tray or Yankee tank. The subject if it
> >: matters were landscapes. Thanks in advance for the info- Don
> >
> >
> >As one of the self-described "PMK bigots" in this ng, for TMX I would
> >frankly recommend that you _avoid_ PMK altogether. My experience is
> >limited to 35mm TMX, but on that basis I find PMK unsatisfactory because
> >it does not stain the emulsion very well, and therefore it is pointless to
> >use PMK, since other developers will do just as well without the
> >constraints associated with PMK.
>
Peter De Smidt
here have said. He says that PMK and Rodinal are the two best developers he's found
for TMX and TMY, and he knows a lot of developers. In my personal experience, 35mm TMX
does stain: The negs are clearly yellow green, but it does not stain as much as HP4+,
HP5+, Agfa 100, HIE, Tri-x... But...so? With less stain there will not be as much
compensation in the high print values with VC paper. In some cases, and with some
papers, this might be a real plus. In addition grain might be slightly larger with
less stain as seen in the print , but since these newer films have smaller grain than
the older generation films, I haven't found this objectionable. Even w/o the stain,
PMK is a very high accutance developer, much like dilute Rodinal. And it's tanning
action limits the penetration of the developer into the emulsion. It doesn't seem to
me to be a necessary truth that more stain is always better, or that a film that
doesn't stain that much won't produce excellent results with PMK.
PDS
> >As one of the self-described "PMK bigots" in this ng, for TMX I would
> >frankly recommend that you _avoid_ PMK altogether. My experience is
> >limited to 35mm TMX, but on that basis I find PMK unsatisfactory because
> >it does not stain the emulsion very well, and therefore it is pointless to
> >use PMK, since other developers will do just as well without the
> >constraints associated with PMK.
>
Isaac H Crawford
even sure of the developer you're going to use? It was my understanding that
in determining wheather you need plus or minus development has everything
to do with which developer you use...As a matter of fact, how can you know
how to expose your negs if you're not sure which developer you're going to
use... You might want to let us know how you exposed your film, we'll be
able to give a few more pointers about which developers to use...
Happy Shooting
Isaac
DHW430 wrote in message <19981012194815...@ng01.aol.com>...
>
> I would like to get any advice on these developer options for this
weekend,
>i.e. the pros and cons for each. The negatives are 4x5 and need N+1
developing
F Jake
developer/film combinations without prior testing...
Jake
William Laut
It only goes to show that I am more open-minded than my critics would have
you to believe. :-)
Bill
Clyde Davidson (lu...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: Ha! William Laut comdemning PMK. That's a good one, HA! <LOL>
:
: Clyde
:
:
:
: Michael Gudzinowicz wrote:
: >
: > William Laut <wl...@alpha.delta.edu> writes:
: >
: > >DHW430 (dhw...@aol.com) wrote:
: > >:
: > >: I would like to get any advice on these developer options for this weekend
: > >: i.e. the pros and cons for each. The negatives are 4x5 and need N+1 develop
: > >: and will either be developed in a tray or Yankee tank. The subject if it
: > >: matters were landscapes. Thanks in advance for the info- Don
: > >
: > >
: > >As one of the self-described "PMK bigots" in this ng, for TMX I would
: > >frankly recommend that you _avoid_ PMK altogether. My experience is
: > >limited to 35mm TMX, but on that basis I find PMK unsatisfactory because
: > >it does not stain the emulsion very well, and therefore it is pointless to
: > >use PMK, since other developers will do just as well without the
: > >constraints associated with PMK.
: >
: > Interesting... Gordon Hutchings (and others) found that TMX didn't stain
Rbsrig
metaborate afterbath rather than used developer and found the combination to be
highly satisfactory. It is true however, that TMX does not stain as deeply as
TMY in my system. The TMX stain IS quite even and the negatives print superbly.
Bob Blum
SPECTRUM
(William Laut) wrote:
|>: Perhaps I didn't state myself clearly enough. I am _not_ condemning PMK
|>: entirely, but _only_ for use with TMX. Other films, such as Plus-X, will
|>: stain magnificently, and for those I heartily recommend PMK's use.
Bill your dead on as usual !
Why don't you post some more definitive observations
of PMK with various films ? I certainly was surprised with
my recent experience of PMK and TP-120. Truly a remarkable
combo.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
S P E C T R U M P H O T O G R A P H I C I N C .
webm...@spectrumphoto.com http://www.spectrumphoto.com
732.505.8393 732.349.2622
SPECTRUM
webm...@spectrumphoto.com (SPECTRUM) wrote:
|>: I certainly was surprised with
|>: my recent experience of PMK and TP-120. Truly a remarkable
|>: combo.
OOooooooooppps ! I meant to say TXP-120 !! That's
_slightly_ different from TP !
Michael Gudzinowicz
SPECTRUM <webm...@spectrumphoto.com> writes:
>On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:26:06 GMT,
>webm...@spectrumphoto.com (SPECTRUM) wrote:
>
>|>: I certainly was surprised with
>|>: my recent experience of PMK and TP-120. Truly a remarkable
>|>: combo.
>
> OOooooooooppps ! I meant to say TXP-120 !! That's
>_slightly_ different from TP !
staining developer for TP (Tech Pan) and for lith films.
Peter De Smidt
Michael Gudzinowicz wrote:
> If you dilute PMK 1:1, it works well as a low contrast (pictorial)
> staining developer for TP (Tech Pan) and for lith films.
Yes, it does work, but in my experience it produces a lower film speed
than some other developers. If I remember right, I had to shoot 35mm TP
at EI 6. Photographer's Formulary's TD-3 gives me an EI of 16. I
haven't noticed a sigificant difference between prints from either
developer. My speeds are based on Zone I = +.1 above film base plus
fog. TP does not stain that much either, although it does a little, at
least when the after bath is used developer.
Regards,
PDS
William Laut
: On 13 Oct 1998 10:45:15 -0400, wl...@alpha.delta.edu
: (William Laut) wrote:
:
: |>: Perhaps I didn't state myself clearly enough. I am _not_ condemning PMK
: |>: entirely, but _only_ for use with TMX. Other films, such as Plus-X, will
: |>: stain magnificently, and for those I heartily recommend PMK's use.
:
: Bill your dead on as usual !
:
: Why don't you post some more definitive observations
: my recent experience of PMK and TP-120. Truly a remarkable
: combo.
Glad you liked it! How about posting some pictures from the PMKed TXP
negatives, so we can compare the TXP negs to your TMX print of the flower
(that you printed on Seagull #4)?
Right now, as time permits, I testing Delta 100 with PMK, in an attempt
to duplicate what Curt Miller is seeing with "aged PMK." In particular, I
want to measure, on my densitometer, any differential between fresh and
aged PMK.
I would like to try it with APX25, and other films. I'm curious to see
what the staining properties are like, as they vary from emulsion to
emulsion.
Bill
DHW430
film/developer combinations. I have ran one batch of tmx 4x5 with Rodinal1:50
in my Yankee tank and was not happy with the results i.e. uneven development -
poor technique or tank problem, same complaint I have with tech pan and
technidol. Any advise short of buying either the BTZS tubes or Jobo system?
Secondly I did some HP5+ in 8x10 in BTZS tubes with the Rodinal 1:25 and loved
the results-beautiful, canl't wait to do more if my back survives-ouch! Any
comments on either of these situations, or better options for tech pan I would
appreciate. Thanks again- Don
Clyde Davidson
Delta 400 in PMK.
However, I seem to have only done it with 'yellow' Part A. So, I've
never seen the non-aged version talked about here.
Clyde
William Laut wrote:
>
<crop>
SPECTRUM
|>: I started this thread about a week ago because I wanted to try some new
Three bits of advice.
1) Get away from that Yankee tank and get an HP
Combi-Plan tank. You can then invert your film during the
development.
2) Stick with Rodinal at the higher dilutions.
Personally I use 1:100. Dilute developers are more even
working .
3)For TP try Rodinal 1:100 for 6.5 minutes at 70F.
Alleycat
much
happier....
--
Steve Alley
"If at first you don't succeed, stay away from skydiving."
DHW430 wrote in message <19981020194202...@ng14.aol.com>...
Sandor Mathe
: On 20 Oct 1998 23:42:02 GMT, dhw...@aol.com (DHW430) wrote:
:
: |>: I started this thread about a week ago because I wanted to try some new
: |>: film/developer combinations. I have ran one batch of tmx 4x5 with Rodinal1:50
: |>: in my Yankee tank and was not happy with the results i.e. uneven development -
: |>: poor technique or tank problem, same complaint I have with tech pan and
: |>: technidol. Any advise short of buying either the BTZS tubes or Jobo system?
: |>: Secondly I did some HP5+ in 8x10 in BTZS tubes with the Rodinal 1:25 and loved
: |>: the results-beautiful, canl't wait to do more if my back survives-ouch! Any
: |>: comments on either of these situations, or better options for tech pan I would
: |>: appreciate. Thanks again- Don
: Three bits of advice.
:
: 1) Get away from that Yankee tank and get an HP
: Combi-Plan tank. You can then invert your film during the
: development.
:
: 2) Stick with Rodinal at the higher dilutions.
: Personally I use 1:100. Dilute developers are more even
: working .
:
: 3)For TP try Rodinal 1:100 for 6.5 minutes at 70F.
Another thing to try with Tech Pan is C-41 developer. I get normal
contrast at ISO 12 - 25 with Tech Pan, and since I do my own colour
negatives as well, I use the last 1/2 or 1/3 of the C-41 developer's
capacity for Tech Pan (since there's no colour balance to worry
about).
Of course use normal B&W fixer or you'll destroy the negatives.
--
Sandor Mathe
san...@ca.ibm.com